Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39659142›Full record

ArticleCatheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions2025

Retrospective Analysis of the Thai Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Registry: Impacts of Center Volume and Operator Experience on Outcomes.

Mann Chandavimol, Thosaphol Limpijankit, Suphot Srimahachota, Wacin Buddhari, Worawit Tantisiriwat, Songsak Kiatchoosakun, Thanwa Pitaksuteepong, Sukanya Siriyotha, Ammarin Thakkinstian, Nakarin Sansanayudh

Abstract readMulticenter StudyComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Mann ChandavimolDivision of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Thosaphol LimpijankitDivision of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.ORCID 0000-0002-1457-350X
Suphot SrimahachotaDivision of Cardiovascular Disease, Department of Medicine, King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand.
Wacin BuddhariDivision of Cardiovascular Disease, Department of Medicine, King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand.
Worawit TantisiriwatCardiology Unit, Department of Medicine, Chonburi Hospital, Chonburi, Thailand.
Songsak KiatchoosakunDepartment of Medicine, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand.
Thanwa PitaksuteepongCardiology Unit, Department of Medicine, Phrapokklao Hospital, Chanthaburi, Thailand.
Sukanya SiriyothaDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Faculty of Medicine, Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Ammarin ThakkinstianDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Faculty of Medicine, Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Nakarin SansanayudhCardiology Unit, Department of Internal Medicine, Phramongkutklao Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand.ORCID 0000-0001-5668-7559

Funding

This research was supported by the Health System Research Institute, Ministry of Public Health, Thailand.
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPercutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) outcomes can vary due to various factors, including patient clinical condition, complexity of coronary lesions, expertise of operators, and quality of the PCI center.

aimsThis study evaluated the influence of PCI center volume and operator experience on patient outcomes after the procedure.

methodsRetrospective data on demographic, clinical details, and outcomes for all patients undergoing PCI across 39 hospitals in Thailand from 2018 to 2019 were retrieved. PCI center volume was categorized based on annual number of interventions: low (< 200), intermediate (200-499), and high (≥ 500). Operator experience was assessed by years of practice (low [< 5] and high [≥ 5]) and the number of PCI cases performed annually (low [< 75] and high [≥ 75]). The evaluated PCI outcomes were: PCI failure; procedural complications; PCI-related in-hospital mortality; 1 year post-intervention all-cause mortality.

resultsA total of 19,701 patients who underwent PCI were included in the analysis, of whom 17,432 had follow-up data available after 1 year. Of these, 58.1% presented with either ST-elevation or non-ST elevation myocardial infarction/unstable angina, while 41.9% had stable CAD. Nearly half of the patients had triple-vessel or left-main disease, and 8.7% presented with cardiogenic shock. The percent with PCI failure, procedural complications, PCI-related in-hospital death, and 1-year all-cause mortality were 4.9%, 5.1%, 2.7%, and 11.8%, respectively. Despite patients in higher-risk profiles being treated at high-volume PCI centers and by experienced operators, there were no significant differences in PCI failure, PCI-related in-hospital mortality nor 1-year all-cause mortality compared to those treated at low or intermediate volume PCI centers. However, high-volume PCI centers had procedural complications more frequently (4.7%) than did intermediate (3.9%) and low-volume (2.5%) centers (p < 0.001). After adjusting for confounding factors, no significant associations were found between PCI center volume and PCI outcome. Similarly, no significant relationship was found between operator experience and procedural complications, nor 1-year all-cause mortality. Nevertheless, operators with more years of practice were associated with lower PCI-related in-hospital mortality (odds ratio [95% CI] of 0.75 (0.57, 0.98); p < 0.038). Additionally, operators conducting a higher number of PCIs annually tended to have less PCI failures (odds ratio [95% CI] of 0.76 (0.57, 1.01); p = 0.062).

conclusionA center's PCI volume did not significantly impact PCI outcome. In contrast, operator experience did impact outcomes. This result highlights areas for improvement and can help reform strategies for national PCI systems at both center and operator levels.

Indexed as

Clinical CompetenceCoronary Artery DiseaseHospitals, High-VolumeHospitals, Low-VolumePercutaneous Coronary InterventionAgedFemaleHospital MortalityHumansMaleMiddle AgedRegistriesRetrospective StudiesRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsSoutheast Asian Peoplehospital volumeoperator experienceoperator volumepercutaneous coronary intervention

Identifiers

PMID39659142
PMCPMC11788963

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.